Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[manifesto]

Historical consensus.

Is it?

And as the consensus view of this conversation for several threads now. IIRC it was pretty much the OP of the original thread cascade.

The only consensus I see is that he ”was a suspect” in the assassination of JFK.

From where do you get this consensus? Langley, Virginia?

 

[manifesto]

Car-6 is a convertible, but the White SS car (Car-5) is a hardtop, and the roof is white. This is one of the things that helps confirm that Car-5 is the car that it visible in both H648 and Z162... you can see the roof in both shots.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/reihwlrknf86t1d/JFK-hughes648.png?raw=1[/qimg] [qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/w801igdhlhvp7jm/JFK-zapruder162.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

There was no other white hardtop in the motorcade.

You can see the white convertible - Car-6 (which was directly behind the white hardtop - Car-5) in the distance in the next shot. Now whatever the white blob is that you are obsessing about, it is NOT Officer HB McLain, because he is here...

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/y50o93jsyiszcsp/JFK-Hughes-McLain.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

... absolutely 100% confirmed by his own testimony and that of his partner, Officer Marion Baker. It is beyond reasonable to expect that these policemen knew where their duty station was in the motorcade.

If you think Officer HB McLain was lying... you have to prove it, with evidence.
If you think officer ML baker was lying, you have to prove it, with evidence.
If you think this is NOT HB McLain, then you have to show who it was, and prove it, with evidence.

What? I’m discussing if the moving vehicle in Randy Robertson’s video is a motorcycle cop or car-6.

Well?

 

[manifesto]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Zki6LEk.gif[/qimg]

What are you trying to say with this gif?

 

[manifesto]

Here's the link:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/report_download.html

Please download the quicktime files and see for yourself where Myers synchs up the footage. If you download the pdf he goes on (at some length) about his synchronization techniques i.e.using not only just car location points but also bystanders waving (even though the image is blurry their hands in the air provide a way to time each sequence).

What, if anything, has this to do with the height of car-6?

 

[manifesto]

No, we don't have to do that last bit at all.

What you have to so is argue, and prove the source material is incorrect - burden of proof is on you.

If you claim its veracity, of course you have to argue it.

Or, should I do that for you?

 

[manifesto]

Ever heard of a kerb.
[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/qxxwwcpm8gj65ar/kerb.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

A roadside kerb is about half a head high. Perhaps the men on the left side are standing on the kerb, while the people beyond the cars from Hughes viewpoint, are standing on the closed part of Houston beyond where the cars are turning left into Elm.

I’m not talking absolute hights, I’m talking relative hights.

- The car-6 windshield is as high as the average male bystanders waist/torso.

- The white object traveling behind the bystanders on the west side curb of Houston is doing so at the hight of the average male bystanders nose.

- The hight of the motorcycle officers when driving are ca a head higher than the top of the windshield of car-6.

Ergo. The white object behind the west curb bystanders has to be the white helmet of a motorcycle officer riding on his bike and the only officer who could possibly be there is McLain.

Ergo. McLain is exactly where the scientific acoustic evidence need him to be, his stuck mike picking up the sound from the first of five rifle shots in Dealey Plaza at the time JFK was assassinated.

Five rifle shots, the fatal one from in front = conspiracy = Oswald did NOT kill JFK = the political crime of the last half century got covered up and still is.

 

[BStrong]

Miscellaneous jive snipped

Five rifle shots, the fatal one from in front = conspiracy = Oswald did NOT kill JFK = the political crime of the last half century got covered up and still is.

Gratuitous assertions can be rejected gratuitously.

Outside of fantasyland there is -0- evidence of a projectile impacting JFK from anywhere other than from behind.

 

[MicahJava]

What are you trying to say with this gif?

Thanks for holding down the fort while I was temporarily banned for a formatting mistake on one comment?

 

[BStrong]

Thanks for holding down the fort while I was temporarily banned for a formatting mistake on one comment?

Marginal pov's take their allies where they can get them.

 

[manifesto]

Gratuitous assertions can be rejected gratuitously.

Outside of fantasyland there is -0- evidence of a projectile impacting JFK from anywhere other than from behind.

1. Scientific acoustic evidence of a shot from in front on the knoll being the fatal head shot.

2. JFK’s head violently snaps back and to the left when hit by the fatal head shot = shot from in front to the right on the knoll.

3. The majority of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza (ca 50) who was asked said that they heard shot/s came from in front on the knoll.

4. Some of these reported smelling ”gun powder” on the knoll and/or just below it when passing with the motorcade.

5. Some of these saw smoke gliding down the knoll just after hearing the shots.

6. There is a photograph showing smoke over the lower part of the knoll just after the shooting.

7. Almost everyone who observed JFK’s headwounds close up between Dealey Plaza and the mourge at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, ca 50 individuals (Harpers fragment included), reported a big gaping wound in the right back of the head —-> typical exit wound. Doctors, nurses, forensic photographers, x-ray technicians, SS agents and FBI agents, from three hospitals and two federal police agencies.

8. Three forensic pathologists at the Methodist Hospital in Dallas, concluding that the ”Harpers fragment” was of cranial occipital bone and ca. 7-5 cm in size —-> exit wound in the back of the head —-> shot from in front.

9. Dr.’s Clark and Perry at Parkland reporting what they believed was an entrance wound in the throught. Small, clean, round and punctuated —-> shot from in front. Before performing a tracheotomy over it.

Shall I continue?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Is it?

The only consensus I see is that he ”was a suspect” in the assassination of JFK.

From where do you get this consensus? Langley, Virginia?

Yes. It is the consensus view amongst actual historians.
No, this consensus for this conversation does not come from Virginia.
It comes from several hundred pages of discussion.
But if you want to show me data to disprove either, then by all means, enlighten me with something other the word "controversy" and vague allusions that lots of other people also believe other things...

 

[Tomtomkent]

Gratuitous assertions can be rejected gratuitously.

Outside of fantasyland there is -0- evidence of a projectile impacting JFK from anywhere other than from behind.

Certainly none that has been presented in the discussion.

 

[manifesto]

Marginal pov's take their allies where they can get them.

”When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.”

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[manifesto]

Yes. It is the consensus view amongst actual historians.
No, this consensus for this conversation does not come from Virginia.
It comes from several hundred pages of discussion.
But if you want to show me data to disprove either, then by all means, enlighten me with something other the word "controversy" and vague allusions that lots of other people also believe other things...

Why all this grand talk of ”consensus”, ”null”, ”concilience”, etc, but never actually presenting the supporting evidence?

Magical thinking?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why all this grand talk of ”consensus”, ”null”, ”concilience”, etc, but never actually presenting the supporting evidence?

Magical thinking?

Because you said you were familiar with the WC and its evidence.

Are you?

Because if YOU know what we are discussing, and I know what we are discussing, and given it has already been presented earlier in the conversation, is there a need to present it again?

 

[manifesto]

Thanks for holding down the fort while I was temporarily banned for a formatting mistake on one comment?

Wellcome back.

 

[smartcooky]

There are limits to the number of topics anyone can discuss simultaniously.

Of course.

Really?

I am currently discussing five different topics on three different forums... easy peezy!

 

[HSienzant]

Manfesto, all you do in the below post is repeat your claims, but still offer no evidence of your claims. Look:

What? I’m saying that running from a scene where people are shooting is NOT = being the killer. I could be other reasons.

Well, how about some evidence?

That said, no, since the witness testimonies allegedly identifying Oswald in connection to the killing of Tippit are all highly dubious,

YOU who need to provide YOUR evidence in support of YOUR claims. ... Provide the links to the rest of your witnesses, and I’ll take it from there.

and since the technical evidence connecting the alleged murder weapon with ammo to Oswald and to the killing of Tippit is highly dubious

You are the one making the claims above, you are the one who need to substantiate them with supporting evidence. Do it.

and since a number of other factors connected to the Tippit case are highly suspect,

Name them and cite...

there is no reason to argue other reasons for Oswald running from the scene.

But you did. And you put Oswald at the murder scene at the time of the murder. You'd make a terrible defense attorney. This is why conspiracy theorists generally don't try to offer a scenario that fits the known evidence. Their concessions then can be used to establish parts of the Warren Commission's argument.​

My argument is just that running from a crime scene where people are killing people are not automatically equal to guilt.

Well, then name the other witnesses who fled that crime scene. You should,

Because it is YOU WHO MAKE THE CLAIM.

Still waiting for you to document your claims.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And again, you just repeat the claims but offer no evidence to support your questioned claims.

- He did NOT identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit to the WC.

It doesn’t matter where you store your evidence, you have to provide the source, cite the evidence and argue for its veracity.

- He was convinced that the killing of his brother was connected to his non identification of Oswald as the killer of Tippit.

Still waiting for you to cite the evidence for this. You should,

Because it is YOU WHO MAKE THE CLAIM.

Ergo. He didn’t ever positively ID Oswald as the killer of Tippit or in any way connected to the killing of Tippit.

You are the one making the claims above, you are the one who need to substantiate them with supporting evidence. Do it.

Still waiting for you to document your claims.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I’m providing sources when asked to do so.

No, you're not. I've been asking you to cite your sources since you came back here. As we can see above, you typically simply repeat the claims.​

Quote my claims one post at the time.

Why? Are you Robert Prey who tried to impose the same limitation on everyone here?​

Hank